Taco Bell to lose franchise war. Anything not good for you is bad, hence illegal.

[badmonkey]

City panel advances South L.A. fast-food ban (http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_7696303)

[ChrisTheCop]

If this is true, where will these 2 eat?

http://www.cineclub.de/images/1993/12/demolition-man-4.jpg

[patsopinion]

i havent eaten fast food since i moved out of tahoe but i reserve the right to buy greasey food at 3 am in the morning

and regular places to eat just simply dont have the set up for that

just stop eating it

[MellySmelly]

I can't believe it. In the movie Demolition Man, it was the only fast food place left. Buggah!

(your pic didn't show up the first time I posted that Chris)

[DarkHippie]

This is retarded, like Down Syndrome with a side of head injury

[Bulldogcakes]

The busybodies are going to lose this one. Taco Bell is big enough to challenge this, and under any rational definition "Fast food" will have to include most local small eateries who serve food that if anything, is greasier and unhealthier than what fast food chains offer. Even if they found a way to exclude local eateries, the law will have negative health effect as consumers are driven to greasy ethnic places and away from the big chains. This is too broad, poorly thought out legislation and will likely be very unpopular in their districts.

If these clowns weren't the heavy handed socialists thugs that they are, they might find they could work with the fast food chains and get them to voluntarily offer healthier choices on their menus. But that isn't enough for them. They don't want to negotiate, they want to destroy these businesses because too many people (of their own free will) choose these places and enjoy them. And the legislators know better about what their constituents should and shouldn't EAT. How's that for intrusive government? Big Brother at the dinner table.

With the stroke of a pen an entire segment of the local economy is eliminated. For my left of center friends, remember that when you try to tell me about how much "power" big business has in this country.

[sailor]

my favorite line: "I think we should look at what we're doing here and whether what we are doing is things that will make my daughter healthier." um, shouldn't you as a father be in charge of that one, bucko?

[badmonkey]

Remember... this shit all started with the smoking bans, then went to the banning of trans fats. This madness has to be stopped before we have to learn to wipe our asses with seashells.

[thejives]

lets just get rid of all restaurants.

and food.

food will get you every time.

[torker]

Good. More for me.

[TheMojoPin]

Remember... this shit all started with the smoking bans, then went to the banning of trans fats. This madness has to be stopped before we have to learn to wipe our asses with seashells.

Wouldn't it have technically started with no smoking sections by this little train you've set up here?

[Bulldogcakes]

Remember... this shit all started with the smoking bans, then went to the banning of trans fats. This madness has to be stopped before we have to learn to wipe our asses with seashells.

Its been going on a lot longer than that, and will keep going on for the rest of our lives.
Politicians will always try crap like this to score points with the progressive nerds. Whats even worse is some of them actually believe in bad ideas like this. Hopefully the State Senate or the judiciary will knock it down as unworkable or unconstitutional.

[TheMojoPin]

Hopefully the State Senate or the judiciary will knock it down as unworkable or unconstitutional.

Finally, a bit of sense.

There's no way this thing stands.

[badmonkey]

Wouldn't it have technically started with no smoking sections by this little train you've set up here?

Nope... smoking sections allowed for choices. These other things strip away choices.
Either way we're gonna get the 3 seashells.

[TheMojoPin]

Nope... smoking sections allowed for choices. These other things strip away choices.
Either way we're gonna get the 3 seashells.

Well, you can argue that smoking sections restricted choices. What if the smoking section wasn't as "good" as the non-smoking section? What if it was more out of the way? You could also argue that large scale smoking bans still allow people to choose to smoke. There are just less public places they can do it in.

I'm just tossing those out there to show that there isn't this easily tracked slippery slope you're putting out there.

[HBox]

Well, you can argue that smoking sections restricted choices. What if the smoking section wasn't as "good" as the non-smoking section? What if it was more out of the way? You could also argue that large scale smoking bans still allow people to choose to smoke. There are just less public places they can do it in.

I'm just tossing those out there to show that there isn't this easily tracked slippery slope you're putting out there.

Yes it is that simple. If it isn't Soviet Russia here already it will be tomorrow.

[Grendel_Kahn]

On an individual level....meaning as a bartender for 5 years....I applauded the smokig ban in bars and restaurants. But on a city wide/national level........really not so much. There is no way this ban will hold up. It's a free market and the market will dictate the laws of supply and demand. Taco Bell will succeed or fail based on consumers willing to buy from them. Less government is always better.


Go RON PAUL!!!

[epo]

On an individual level....meaning as a bartender for 5 years....I applauded the smokig ban in bars and restaurants. But on a city wide/national level........really not so much. There is no way this ban will hold up. It's a free market and the market will dictate the laws of supply and demand. Taco Bell will succeed or fail based on consumers willing to buy from them. Less government is always better.


Go RON PAUL!!!

I find your logic of "less government is always better" to be the funniest thing I've read all day & honestly downright silly.

Think of everything within your day that the government makes possible.

The road you drove.
The school your kids went to.
The fact that you don't have asbestos in your walls.
The fact that the food you eat is safe.
The above minimum wage job you hold.

Think about it sometime, how many government rules effect your daily life and how many of them are "bad".

[Grendel_Kahn]

EPO, I do not disagree with you on the points you made. What I take issue with is how in the last 5-10 years just how much unnecessary governmental regulation is in your daily life. Yes the FDA inspects food, but we still managed to get contaminated spinach last summer, no?
The public school system is deplorable, the road I drove on has been paved only to justify a budget that unless spent would not be handed down next year. That along with the countless waste and wanton disregard for constituency,..............well.....yess less government is a good thing. The government should do the things outlined in the constitution. "we the people, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity do ordain, and establish this constitution for the united states of america"

or if you prefer :
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Q_TXJRZ4CFc&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Q_TXJRZ4CFc&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[ChrisTheCop]

I find your logic of "less government is always better" to be the funniest thing I've read all day & honestly downright silly.

Think of everything within your day that the government makes possible.

The road you drove.
The school your kids went to.
The fact that you don't have asbestos in your walls.
The fact that the food you eat is safe.
The above minimum wage job you hold.

Think about it sometime, how many government rules effect your daily life and how many of them are "bad".

Just to clarify for the lad, Ron Paul believes in less federal government, and in allowing the states to take over departments the feds have no business dealing with. 3 of the 5 things you list are actually state governed, in whole or in part...Dr Paul just wants the states to take more responsibility from the feds, thereby being able to delete unnecessary taxation.

[Grendel_Kahn]

I find your logic of "less government is always better" to be the funniest thing I've read all day & honestly downright silly.

.


and I find that statement to be downright naive, and just a bit servile.

[HBox]

Just to clarify for the lad, Ron Paul believes in less federal government, and in allowing the states to take over departments the feds have no business dealing with. 3 of the 5 things you list are actually state governed, in whole or in part...Dr Paul just wants the states to take more responsibility from the feds, thereby being able to delete unnecessary taxation.

Yeah, among other ideas, many batshit nuts.

[epo]

and I find that statement to be downright naive, and just a bit servile.

No, I just meant what I said.

Actually it would be very servile to live in a totally free-market society. Ever hear of robber barons? Those are free market guys and the last time I checked they didn't give a shit about the quality of your life.

[Bulldogcakes]

Think about it sometime, how many government rules effect your daily life and how many of them are "bad".

This one.

[HBox]

and I find that statement to be downright naive, and just a bit servile.

Absolute statement like that are rarely, rarely, RARELY true. Less government is always better is not true. You think private industry better suited to run the police? The military? Roads? The fire department? Do you actually think that the private sector is doing a decent job with healthcare?

Less government is usually better.

[ChrisTheCop]

Yeah, among other ideas, many batshit nuts.

there was a time when a woman or a black man running for office would be considered batshit nuts. times change, and so do ideas. The best thing about Dr Paul, however, is that his ideals do not change. He's a Constitutionalist, and he voted against the war in Iraq when your candidates didnt. Batshit nuts, indeed.

[epo]

EPO, I do not disagree with you on the points you made. What I take issue with is how in the last 5-10 years just how much unnecessary governmental regulation is in your daily life.

Please remember it's Bush that gave you:


The Patriot Act, which destroys your rights.
The "No Child Left Behind" Act which defunds and guts our school.
The "Blue Skies" Act, which pollutes our air.


Seriously, if America has learned one lesson from Bush, it should be to not hire a person that has disdain for the job they are applying for.

Ron Paul has disdain for the job, I'm not hiring him.

[HBox]

there was a time when a woman or a black man running for office would be considered batshit nuts. times change, and so do ideas. The best thing about Dr Paul, however, is that his ideals do not change. He's a Constitutionalist, and he voted against the war in Iraq when your candidates didnt. Batshit nuts, indeed.

Are you serious? You sound like a cultist.

Going to the fucking gold standard is not some radical new idea, it's a fucking old idea that our freaking great grandfather realized was a pile of shit.

Blindly applying your ideology to everything like Paul does NEVER works. You have to be flexible. Just looking at every freaking problem and saying "Let's just take the federal government out of this and everything will be fine" is asinine. You are asking yourself to ignore the evidence in front of you and act on faith, faith in an ideology. That would only lead to disaster.

BTW, if you are referring to Presidential candidates right now I'm supporting Obama who didn't vote for the war and spoke against it.

[TheMojoPin]

Are you serious? You sound like a cultist.

Going to the fucking gold standard is not some radical new idea, it's a fucking old idea that our freaking great grandfather realized was a pile of shit.

Blindly applying your ideology to everything like Paul does NEVER works. You have to be flexible. Just looking at every freaking problem and saying "Let's just take the federal government out of this and everything will be fine" is asinine. You are asking yourself to ignore the evidence in front of you and act on faith, faith in an ideology. That would only lead to disaster.

Bravo.

In the simplest terms, Paul's rhetoric speaks as if he thinks we can somehow pretend that America isn't as large and as difficult to manage as it is, or that it hasn't evolved dramatically in the last few decades. His approach is overly simplistic, outdated and unrealistic, mainly because his ideas AREN'T new and apply to an America that simply does not exist anymore, or could never exist in the first place.

[Bulldogcakes]

Absolute statement like that are rarely, rarely, RARELY true. Less government is always better is not true. You think private industry better suited to run the police? The military? Roads? The fire department? Do you actually think that the private sector is doing a decent job with healthcare?

Less government is usually better.

Of course not. And I don't think anyone here wants to live in government housing, would rather send their kid to a public school than a highly regarded private school, or would want the computer they're posting on to be built by the Pentagon instead of a Silicon Valley firm.

Of course there are legit roles for government. No reasonable person disputes that. It's where we draw these lines that people differ. And no, I'm no fan of Ron Paul.

[ChrisTheCop]

I hate to sound like the 9/11 guys here, but please, all I'm asking is to do your research before commenting. If Obama voted against the war, I'll give him that. I didnt know that.

But what you apparently dont know about Dr Paul is that he doesnt plan on returning to the gold standard.
Paul is vocal in his opposition to inflation, arguing that the longterm erosion of the dollar's purchasing power arises from its lack of commodity (such as gold) backing, which would restrain excess "printing" of money and consequent devaluation. Paul says he "wouldn't exactly go back on the gold standard"[23], but would push to relegalize gold and silver as legal tender and remove the sales tax on them, so that gold-backed notes (or other types of hard money) and digital gold currencies[24] can compete on a level playing field with fiat Federal Reserve notes, allowing individuals a choice whether to use "sound money" to protect their purchasing power or to use flat money.

Dr Paul is a man of ideas; some of them will fly, some wont. But he's had these ideas for over 25 years and is well respected for not waivering on the basics. He's a Constitutionalist who understands in order for anything to get done, he needs the support and backing of the senate and congress, and the American people.

What are Obama's ideas for strengthening the US Dollar?

[TheMojoPin]

Why is it "Dr. Paul," but not, say, "Senator Obama" or "Mayor Giuliani?"

Bottom line, Paul wants to privatize waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much of our government. That's terrifying.

And again, why is "not waivering over 25 years" considered a good thing? That's the same kind of hype we heard about the current Bush..."he sticks with his ideas and doesn't back down from his decisions!" Being stagnnt for almost three decades doesn't make someone better...it makes them a political/social/economic dinosaur.

[ChrisTheCop]

You guys argue politics all day; I will not win in a war of political words.

All I can ask is that you go to his website www.ronpaul2008.com
and see for yourself.

Just read his positions, his experience, his history.

I know when I first heard of him, I believed the media when they said he was just another spoiler, like Perot or Nader. But just listen to him speak, be interviewed, and if you dont see that he's a man of principle, a man of convictions, then dont vote for him. But dont just dismiss him because you heard he's a nut.

And I hear people call Giuliani "mayor" and Obama "Senator" all the time.... and Dr Paul is a Dr...but ok...do u prefer "Congressman Paul"? He's dedicated his life to serving people, and I'm proud to have fallen into his cult.

Everyone wants change in America, but are frightened when someone actually presents a plan for it.

[HBox]

But he's had these ideas for over 25 years and is well respected for not waivering on the basics

Os that really a positive. Not changing for 25 years? being stubborn is only a good thing if your ideas work. The current President of someone whos ticks to his convictions. Has that worked out for us?

Just because Paul has an idea about strengthening the dollar doesn't mean that's a good thing. If it's a bad idea, which his is, that's a bad thing!

Here's Barack Obama on the dollar:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/eDXqS5LQXj0&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/eDXqS5LQXj0&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[HBox]

You guys argue politics all day; I will not win in a war of political words.

All I can ask is that you go to his website www.ronpaul2008.com (http://www.ronpaul2008.com)
and see for yourself.

Just read his positions, his experience, his history.

I know when I first heard of him, I believed the media when they said he was just another spoiler, like Perot or Nader. But just listen to him speak, be interviewed, and if you dont see that he's a man of principle, a man of convictions, then dont vote for him. But dont just dismiss him because you heard he's a nut.

And I hear people call Giuliani "mayor" and Obama "Senator" all the time.... and Dr Paul is a Dr...but ok...do u prefer "Congressman Paul"? He's dedicated his life to serving people, and I'm proud to have fallen into his cult.

Everyone wants change in America, but are frightened when it's actually brought up.

I did look into him. He impressed me with his stance on Iraq a very long time ago, maybe even a year ago when he appeared on Bill Maher. At first
I like him, probably because on Maher's show all he talked about was basically Iraq. Then I did look into him and I saw his views and thought he was crazy. I'm not a libertarian. he doesn't appeal to me. If you are you then he does appeal to you. If you are not just try not and get swept up in this wave.

Again, this current President is a great example of what happens when you vote for someone for a reason other than who you think si best suited for the job. "He'll shake up things" is another version of "Well, he'll be surrounded by great advisors."

[epo]

You guys argue politics all day; I will not win in a war of political words.

All I can ask is that you go to his website www.ronpaul2008.com
and see for yourself.

Just read his positions, his experience, his history.

I know when I first heard of him, I believed the media when they said he was just another spoiler, like Perot or Nader. But just listen to him speak, be interviewed, and if you dont see that he's a man of principle, a man of convictions, then dont vote for him. But dont just dismiss him because you heard he's a nut.

And I hear people call Giuliani "mayor" and Obama "Senator" all the time.... and Dr Paul is a Dr...but ok...do u prefer "Congressman Paul"? He's dedicated his life to serving people, and I'm proud to have fallen into his cult.

Everyone wants change in America, but are frightened when someone actually presents a plan for it.

Ron Paul drives me batshit insane. He is the snake-oil salesperson of this race. Some issues he rides both sides, like Food:

More government:

I have introduced the Health Freedom Protection Act, HR 2117, to ensure Americans can receive truthful health information about supplements and natural remedies.

Less governement:

I oppose legislation that increases the FDA‘s legal powers. FDA has consistently failed to protect the public from dangerous drugs, genetically modified foods, dangerous pesticides and other chemicals in the food supply. Meanwhile they waste public funds attacking safe, healthy foods and dietary supplements

Some issues he is the same ol' stupid Republican we've heard for years...education policy (Pro-voucher!):

To help parents with the costs of schooling, I have introduced H.R. 1056, the Family Education Freedom Act, in Congress. This bill would allow parents a tax credit of up to $5,000 (adjustable after 2007 for inflation) per student per year for the cost of attendance at an elementary and/or secondary school. This includes private, parochial, religious, and home schools.

Sometimes he like the newest version of the dumbest idea ever: Health Savings Accounts (HSA):

Making every American eligible for a Health Savings Account (HSA), and removing the requirement that individuals must obtain a high-deductible insurance policy before opening an HSA.

And I'm not gonna quote his nonsense on "Racism", as it's too embarassing to quote.

Trust me I've read up on Ron Paul and I've gladly state that he is fucking nuts. Let me ask you this: If Ron Paul wasn't the only anti-Iraq guy in the Republican race, would anybody know his name?

[ChrisTheCop]

Hbox, again, I dont wanna get into a war with the board experts on politics, but di dyou watch that video before you gave it to me? I never said SENATOR Barack Obama didnt KNOW the dollar was in trouble, and there were things the President could do to help it... I wanted to know WHAT his plan would be!! See the difference? Paul has a plan, and if America doesnt like it, it wont happen...but at least he has a plan and isnt afraid to voice it.

I have a feeling that CONGRESSMAN Paul's response to the China problem would be "Thats their problem. We are not supposed to police the world, and I would do everything possible not to intervene in another region's affairs"

[HBox]

Making every American eligible for a Health Savings Account (HSA), and removing the requirement that individuals must obtain a high-deductible insurance policy before opening an HSA.

This astounded me when I first read it. Way to to take a bad idea and make it 10 times worse.

[Tenbatsuzen]

Let's not forget that the only reason Obama is in this situation is because Jeri Ryan doesn't like sex clubs.

[HBox]

Hbox, again, I dont wanna get into a war with the board experts on politics, but di dyou watch that video before you gave it to me? I never said SENATOR Barack Obama didnt KNOW the dollar was in trouble, and there were things the President could do to help it... I wanted to know WHAT his plan would be!! See the difference? Paul has a plan, and if America doesnt like it, it wont happen...but at least he has a plan and isnt afraid to voice it.

I have a feeling that CONGRESSMAN Paul's response to the China problem would be "Thats their problem. We are not supposed to police the world, and I would do everything possible not to intervene in another region's affairs"

You are missing the point. He realizes that this isn't a problem in the first place, at least not yet. Paul has a bad solution in search of a problem. The dollar has been worth this much before and it will again. It's a symptom of larger problem that Obama recognizes.

[HBox]

Let's not forget that the only reason Obama is in this situation is because Jeri Ryan doesn't like sex clubs.

That guy wasn't going to beat Obama.

[epo]

This astounded me when I first read it. Way to to take a bad idea and make it 10 times worse.

That is the Ron Paul way!

[ChrisTheCop]

and epo, the "more government" example you cite is actually a less government, more personal choice bill...?

You also appear to be gearing up to prove he's a "flip-flopper" but then only cite that one "more/less government" deal, which was wrong.

And it may be true that if he wasnt a stand out candidate, then we would not have heard of him... but isnt that what this process is all about?

[HBox]

and epo, the "more government" example you cite is actually a less government, more personal choice bill...?

No, it's the government forcing companies to publish nutritional information. The correct libertarian response would be "If the market really wanted/needed nutritional information they would only buy from companies that provide it. The government stepping in and forcing companies to provide information only restricts freedom, costs the consumer, blah blah BLAH BLAH BLAH."

[epo]

and epo, the "more government" example you cite is actually a less government, more personal choice bill...?

You also appear to be gearing up to prove he's a "flip-flopper" but then only cite that one "more/less government" deal, which was wrong.

And it may be true that if he wasnt a stand out candidate, then we would not have heard of him... but isnt that what this process is all about?

Actually, the "more government" example is actually a personal choice bill forced by more government regulation....but that's neither here nor there.

And I'm not trying to prove a "flip/flopper" meme, but rather a "business as usual" meme. That's what Ron Paul is...just another politician but in a different set of clothes.

And he's not a "stand out candidate" but rather this year's version of "something different". Seriously, I'm a card-carrying member of the Democratic Party, keep voting for him, I beg you.

[TheMojoPin]

YouI know when I first heard of him, I believed the media when they said he was just another spoiler, like Perot or Nader.

Wait, wait, wait...Paul's "25 years of experience" counts for something, but Nader's almost 50 years of public activism and advocacy are just dismissed as him being nothing more than a "spoiler?" Come on.

I voted, supported and campaigned for Nader, but I never for an instant thought he could win, nor did I actually want him to win. I did want to see him be a part of the Democratic debates, and I did want him to get enough votes for the Green Party to get federal funding as a political party to take at least some small steps to mixing up the political scene a little. In that sense, I can see the appeal of Paul...but as a legit candidate who could actually run this country and not cause a lot more harm than good...no way.

[SatCam]

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Q_TXJRZ4CFc&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Q_TXJRZ4CFc&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>


holy shit... 8th grade over again!

that video is how we learned the preamble:smoke:

[joethebartender]

Nope... smoking sections allowed for choices. These other things strip away choices.
Either way we're gonna get the 3 seashells.

As long as we don't get any razor clams. Google Ron Paul.

[Freakshow]

I can't believe it. In the movie Demolition Man, it was the only fast food place left. Buggah!

(your pic didn't show up the first time I posted that Chris)

But in Blade Runner there is nothing left but Atari and TDK. You can't eat those....

[HBox]

But in Blade Runner there is nothing left but Atari and TDK. You can't eat those....

.............. yet.

[Tenbatsuzen]

That guy wasn't going to beat Obama.

You really can't make that statement. Outside of the heckler thing, you don't know how that election could have turned out. Of COURSE he wiped the floor with Keyes.

[Tenbatsuzen]

BTW, it amazes me that Obama admitted to trying blow and he's OK, but all Jack Ryan wanted to do was have sex in public with his wife and he got complete shit on.

[HBox]

BTW, it amazes me that Obama admitted to trying blow and he's OK, but all Jack Ryan wanted to do was have sex in public with his wife and he got complete shit on.

Obama's a Democrat. Ryan's a Republican. Simple as that. The only Republican who could get away with that stuff is Rudy but that's only because

9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11

[torker]

I usually get 3 Taco Supremes.
http://images.salon.com/mwt/food/eat_drink/2007/09/05/taco_bell/story.jpg

[Grendel_Kahn]

Ron Paul drives me batshit insane. He is the snake-oil salesperson of this race. Some issues he rides both sides, like Food:

More government:




Less governement:



.
Some issues he is the same ol' stupid Republican we've heard for years...education policy (Pro-voucher!):



Sometimes he like the newest version of the dumbest idea ever: Health Savings Accounts (HSA):




And I'm not gonna quote his nonsense on "Racism", as it's too embarassing to quote.

Trust me I've read up on Ron Paul and I've gladly state that he is fucking nuts. Let me ask you this: If Ron Paul wasn't the only anti-Iraq guy in the Republican race, would anybody know his name?

I don't think you made a good argument here. There was nothing wrong with the bill he introduced and he was 100 % accurate in his declaration of the FDA being in the pocket of "Big Pharmacy". As far as the vouchers are concerned...that reads to me like trying to put not only more money in your pocket but a little more personal responsibility/freedom for the individual.

as far as the private health accounts.......not everything can be a home run. Hell, Clinton supported NAFTA.

I am as far removed from a Republican ( as the current definition goes)as you get and side more on the left than I ever do on the right. I look at fiscal conservatism, and social programs as both being good things that are not necessarily mutually exclusive. I see the world for how it is and not how I wish it to be.

[Grendel_Kahn]

Please remember it's Bush that gave you:


The Patriot Act, which destroys your rights.
The "No Child Left Behind" Act which defunds and guts our school.
The "Blue Skies" Act, which pollutes our air.


Seriously, if America has learned one lesson from Bush, it should be to not hire a person that has disdain for the job they are applying for.

Ron Paul has disdain for the job, I'm not hiring him.

That's fine, but the examples you cited just made my "less government is a good thing" point.

[Grendel_Kahn]

No, it's the government forcing companies to publish nutritional information. The correct libertarian response would be "If the market really wanted/needed nutritional information they would only buy from companies that provide it. The government stepping in and forcing companies to provide information only restricts freedom, costs the consumer, blah blah BLAH BLAH BLAH."


Not that I'm an extremist ( nor a post whore evidence to the contrary) isn't that true? When you boil it down, I think that is COMPLETELY true.

[TheMojoPin]

That's fine, but the examples you cited just made my "less government is a good thing" point.

No, they make the point that we need smarter government, not necessarily "less" or "more."

"Less government" as dramatic as Paul wants it puts too much power in the hands of too few people. No thanks.

[HBox]

Not that I'm an extremist ( nor a post whore evidence to the contrary) isn't that true? When you boil it down, I think that is COMPLETELY true.

Yeah well unfortunately what people want and what's good for them is are two very different things. And while that's sounds very nanny state, hell it is nanny state, when it's something as simple and small as something like nutritional information and it has the benefits that putting it on all foods provide, isn't it worth it? While most people don't care and that's reflected by the sorry state of the health of the average, it allows people who actually care about their health to stay healthy and no place more strain on a bad health system and on top of that is almost necessary for diabetics and people who are on very strict diets. And the fatties can't complain they didn't know what they were eating.

The benefits far outweigh any perceived effect on freedom. And it goes to demonstrate how complicated this whole libertarian thing can be. Because while putting nutritional information on foods allows consumers freedom businesses would say it affects their freedom.

My personal thing is that as long as you don't affect anyone else you should do whatever you want as long as you don't affect anyone else. The problem is we affect each other in so many ways, a lot more than we think. If you are a fat ass and have a heart attack that you otherwise wouldn't have had we all pay for it, unless you are rich and pay for the whole thing out of pocket. Same thing goes with smoking and lung cancer. I won't even touch second hand smoke because I don't want to get into right now. My inclination is to say that people should do whatever they like but if you know that is going to lead to an increase in drug abuse that's also going to lead into an increase in crime, and that's affecting innocent people. I can go on and on. It's a very tricky issue. It requires that every issue be looked at independently.

And that's why I'm not a libertarian. And while I usually tend liberal, it's why I wouldn't say that I'm a Democrat or subscribe to any specific ideology.

[ChrisTheCop]

Ron Paul on Less Govmt, medicare, and govt subsidized insurance programs 12/10/07 abc (http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3977601&affil=kxtv)

Ron Paul on justifiable war and other countries problems 12/10/07 abc 20/20 (http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3977514&affil=kxtv)

Ron Paul on Freedom of Choice, abc 20/20, 12/10/07
(http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3970744&affil=kxtv)

[Jujubees2]

Absolute statement like that are rarely, rarely, RARELY true. Less government is always better is not true. You think private industry better suited to run the police? The military? Roads? The fire department? Do you actually think that the private sector is doing a decent job with healthcare?

Less government is usually better.

I read a piece yesterday (can't remember where) that said the San Diego wild fires were so bad because San Diego doesn't have enough fire houses and the politicians won’t add more for fear of having to raise taxes. However, some people who were caught in the fires had private fire insurance and the company they had the insurance with would send their own fire fighters to the houses which were insured. In some cases, the y would be protecting one house while the house next door burns because the owners didn’t have the private insurance.

[HBox]

Ron Paul on Less Govmt, medicare, and govt subsidized insurance programs 12/10/07 abc (http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3977601&affil=kxtv)

That didn't make ANY sense WHATSOEVER. Go to any doctor or hospital and ask them who pays them more, insurance companies or Medicare/Medicaid. It's ALWAYS insurance. How is the government driving up insurance costs? [Lewis Black]THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY FUCKING SENSE![/Lewis Black] Every single other industrialized country that has more socialized care pays vastly less than we do. Again, he's asking you to ignore all the evidence right in front of you.

And he doesn't explain why all this would work. How the hell is a drug that costs thousands of dollars a month gonna suddenly fall far enough that a middle class elderly person can afford it? What kind of free market voodoo is gonna happen? The truth about medicine is that some treatment, most it essential and life saving, is so expensive that people cannot afford on their own unless they are very rich. That's just a truth. And if private insurance was taking care of this country I would not be against it at all. But it's failing more every day and Ron Paul thinks just relying on them completely all of a sudden will solve everything because it has to, because the government is always bad, and no matter what evidence is front of you, everything will be great once its gone.

[TheMojoPin]

I read a piece yesterday (can't remember where) that said the San Diego wild fires were so bad because San Diego doesn't have enough fire houses and the politicians won’t add more for fear of having to raise taxes. However, some people who were caught in the fires had private fire insurance and the company they had the insurance with would send their own fire fighters to the houses which were insured. In some cases, the y would be protecting one house while the house next door burns because the owners didn’t have the private insurance.

We had private fire dpeartments for more than a century in this country.

They were a nightmare.

[Grendel_Kahn]

Yes we did. And what happened? The market corrected itself and all worked out ok. For too long we think we can't do something because "they" told us we are unable to do it. Look I'm not saying that government doesn't have a place. All I'm saying is that in the year 2007 we should be able to rely more on ourselves as a populace, than rely on the most corrupt government since Cesar.

[TheMojoPin]

Yes we did. And what happened? The market corrected itself and all worked out ok.

What? What did the market do with the states, counties and cities taking the fire departments out of the hands of citizens and making them government-driven?

All I'm saying is that in the year 2007 we should be able to rely more on ourselves as a populace, than rely on the most corrupt government since Cesar.

There's so much wrong with this statement. First of all, which Caesar are you talking about?

[HBox]

What? What did the market do with the states, counties and cities taking the fire departments out of the hands of citizens and making them government-driven?



There's so much wrong with this statement. First of all, which Caesar are you talking about?


http://www.sat.lib.tx.us/Displays/Exhibits/LatinoSports/images/chavez_5050.jpg
(http://www.sat.lib.tx.us/Displays/Exhibits/LatinoSports/images/chavez_5050.jpg)

[epo]

Yes we did. And what happened? The market corrected itself and all worked out ok.

Except for those unnecessarily burned down homes & places of business. But I'm sure the market took care of that too.

I love absolutism. It's simply logical swiss cheese.

[ChrisTheCop]

Except for those unnecessarily burned down homes & places of business. But I'm sure the market took care of that too.

I love absolutism. It's simply logical swiss cheese.

I love people who are smug, and cant see how any one else's opinion could possibly matter.

But thats just me.

Or is it you? I forget.

I also like a guy in Wisconsin making a cheese reference.

[Jujubees2]

There's so much wrong with this statement. First of all, which Caesar are you talking about?

I thought it was Cesar Romero

http://static.flickr.com/75/197804477_89bf175d8f_o.jpg

[epo]

I love people who are smug, and cant see how any one else's opinion could possibly matter.

But thats just me.

Or is it you? I forget.

I also like a guy in Wisconsin making a cheese reference.

How is taking the side of innocent people whose homes burned down because of unnecessary privitization of core government services deemed "smug"?

Mind you I have read plenty of Ron Paul's information and I see the logical holes staring me in the face. Mind you I still see a place for the Ron Pauls of the world at the table of government, just like I see a place at that same table for the Al Sharpton's. But I obviously must be close-minded cuz I don't agree with your point of view.

And seriously man, cheese? That's the best you have?

[ChrisTheCop]

You are the epitome of smug, just re-read your posts.
Including the one above.

I continue to be amazed at those who continually complain about the state of our government, but refuse an opportunity to change it. "He has a lotta wacky ideas, lets just elect one of these more common every day candidates. He might change stuff...what will i have to cry about then???"

[TheMojoPin]

You are the epitome of smug, just re-read your posts.
Including the one above.

I continue to be amazed at those who continually complain about the state of our government, but refuse an opportunity to change it. "He has a lotta wacky ideas, lets just elect one of these more common every day candidates. He might change stuff...what will i have to cry about then???"

So far your only responses to our breakdowns as to why we disagree with his ideas are to call us smug or continually redirect us to interviews with him or his campaign website. Do you actually want to debate these points or just continue to basically state "Ron Paul has the answers" and nothing else?

[Grendel_Kahn]

You are the epitome of smug, just re-read your posts.
Including the one above.

I continue to be amazed at those who continually complain about the state of our government, but refuse an opportunity to change it. "He has a lotta wacky ideas, lets just elect one of these more common every day candidates. He might change stuff...what will i have to cry about then???"

That is the REAL heart of this argument. Ron Paul stands as the one guy ( Like Nader before him) who represents real change. Or at least a change in point of view. Do I think When elected President Ron Paul would dissolve the FBI CIA IRS and FDA? Not even a little bit. That is impossible, and to think this guy would come in and change everything overnight is crazy. BUt he would FORCE discussion , and reasonable doubt in our policy decisions here at home and that my friend is NEVER a bad thing.

[HBox]

That is the REAL heart of this argument. Ron Paul stands as the one guy ( Like Nader before him) who represents real change. Or at least a change in point of view. Do I think When elected President Ron Paul would dissolve the FBI CIA IRS and FDA? Not even a little bit. That is impossible, and to think this guy would come in and change everything overnight is crazy. BUt he would FORCE discussion , and reasonable doubt in our policy decisions here at home and that my friend is NEVER a bad thing.

I'm going to use 7 point font for this so no one misses it:

NO ONE IS ARGUING THAT RON PAUL DOESN'T REPRESENT CHANGE. WE ARE ARGUING THAT RON PAUL REPRESENTS CHANGE FOR THE WORSE. MUCH WORSE.

[TheMojoPin]

I'm going to use 7 point font for this so no one misses it:

NO ONE IS ARGUING THAT RON PAUL DOESN'T REPRESENT CHANGE. WE ARE ARGUING THAT RON PAUL REPRESENTS CHANGE FOR THE WORSE. MUCH WORSE.


Agreed. I have zero problem with Ron Paul having some kind of role in our government, and his opinions should be out there for people to respond to or debate or even incorporate in certain ways, but he's demonstrated nothing that indicates that he's suitable to actually run the country, and has actually gone out of his way to show why his presidency would ultimately be detrimental to the very structure and stability of this country. All we keep hearing as his pro's is that he has "new ideas" (most of which are actually old, outdated ideas) and that he "sticks with what he believes in" (which sounds like the damaging stubborness of the current president).

[epo]

You are the epitome of smug, just re-read your posts.
Including the one above.

I continue to be amazed at those who continually complain about the state of our government, but refuse an opportunity to change it. "He has a lotta wacky ideas, lets just elect one of these more common every day candidates. He might change stuff...what will i have to cry about then???"

So you have nothing?

I love Ron Paul fans. Vote for him, I beg you. Then write him in for the general election. I urge you do it.

(That was a smug post. I'm going to go eat some cheese & sausages and wash it down with a beer.)

[ChrisTheCop]

So far your only responses to our breakdowns as to why we disagree with his ideas are to call us smug or continually redirect us to interviews with him or his campaign website. Do you actually want to debate these points or just continue to basically state "Ron Paul has the answers" and nothing else?

My point is that youre not arguing YOUR points other than to say "he's a nut job" and dismiss anyone who would even consider voting for him...ok, not so much you Mojo, but epo and others.

To change the subject for a sec, what are your opinions on Hillary running around saying Barack is not experienced enough to be president, when just a few short years ago, she was a housewife/lawyer from Arkansas looking to represent New York in the senate, with no experience?

(i will no longer waste time reading epo's posts, they add up to meaningless name calling and misinformed blather.)

[TheMojoPin]

My point is that youre not arguing YOUR points other than to say "he's a nut job" and dismiss anyone who would even consider voting for him...ok, not so much you Mojo, but epo and others.

It's pretty much me, epo and HBox, and we've moved far beyond just replying with "he's crazy."

To change the subject for a sec, what are your opinions on Hillary running around saying Barack is not experienced enough to be president, when just a few short years ago, she was a housewife/lawyer from Arkansas looking to represent New York in the senate, with no experience?

I'm not a fan of Hillary's, but to dismiss her as "just a housewife" is a pretty ridiculous dismissal of her role as one of the most active and prominant First Ladies in our nation's history for 8 years.

Secondly, I think any dismissal of anyone as being "too inexperienced" between these two when they both have extensive careers and involvement in the American political system are poor fallacies and attempts at cheap smearing, especially if it's one of them doing the smearing.

[Grendel_Kahn]

Honestly. Just how much real fungible change does a president effect without Congress and Senate. THAT......wait......... that is my point. But by introducing the IDEAS of those changes he would force new discussions, open new ways of thinking and in general not be more of the "same old same old".

As an aside I also know he has no hope of winning. I just want him around for as long as possible because he really acts like a Jiminy Cricket during the debates. He is unflappable, and always gets to the heart of the issue without any bullshit. To be honest i think he would make a fantastic VICE president.

[HBox]

Honestly. Just how much real fungible change does a president effect without Congress and Senate. THAT......wait......... that is my point. But by introducing the IDEAS of those changes he would force new discussions, open new ways of thinking and in general not be more of the "same old same old".

As an aside I also know he has no hope of winning. I just want him around for as long as possible because he really acts like a Jiminy Cricket during the debates. He is unflappable, and always gets to the heart of the issue without any bullshit. To be honest i think he would make a fantastic VICE president.

The Democrats have been in power for over a year and little to anything has changed. The President has a lot of power and all Bush has done is expand that. Don't underestimate the power the President has.

I'm seriously asking this: Would you actually want him as President, or is what you really want is a more prominent libertarian voice in government and you are just enjoying this for the attention?

[Bulldogcakes]

You people lost me somewhere. Does Ron Paul work for Taco Bell?

[epo]

You people lost me somewhere. Does Ron Paul work for Taco Bell?

No, but if you go somewhere on www.Ronpaul.com (www.Ronpaul.com) you'll come to understand that he's a huge fan of the Cinnamon Twists.

[TheMojoPin]

Honestly. Just how much real fungible change does a president effect without Congress and Senate. THAT......wait......... that is my point. But by introducing the IDEAS of those changes he would force new discussions, open new ways of thinking and in general not be more of the "same old same old".

But isn't this just wanting a lame duck president? If his most significant policies have no chance of clearing the other bodies and agencies of government, how real effective can he be?

Like it or not, you need someone in there who can work the system to at least some degree. Someone who is constantly pissing in the wind accomplishes nothing.

[Yerdaddy]

You're on page four in this thread?! Don't you people know there is no room for dissent when we're in the middle of a War On Tacos! That's what the gorditafascists want you to do - to "think outside the bun" of freedom! Only then can they feed you their firey packets of tocoganda so that you'll "run for the border" and straight into their terrorist rancheros where you'll be molded into just another bean in their burrito of hate! WE must be supreme on the platter of ideas and never be mild! We must not allow them to infect our value menus with their burrito-supremist ideology. We must drive-through the battle to them so we don't have to sit-down with them at our own tables. We must not meximelt in the face of the enemy! We must ring the bell-grande of liberty for all to order! This is a quesadilla of them or us! We must say to them: "This is nacho fiesta today, you hairless little rat-dogs! You thought we were soft, but you found out we were crunchy! You querroed an ass-kicking and now you're gonna get one bell-grande!" And together we will make the McWorld safe for freedom fries once again. And may God supersize America!

[Grendel_Kahn]

The Democrats have been in power for over a year and little to anything has changed. The President has a lot of power and all Bush has done is expand that. Don't underestimate the power the President has.

I'm seriously asking this: Would you actually want him as President, or is what you really want is a more prominent libertarian voice in government and you are just enjoying this for the attention?


A more Libertarian ( or even better a more Constitutionalist one) voice is NEEDED more than ever. The more Paul is in the news and public opinion, the more issues are addressed. Does this really come off like a need for attention or is it spirited debate? For too long we as a people have viewed politics sort of like the weather: " Oh it's terrible, but what can you do?".

[Grendel_Kahn]

But isn't this just wanting a lame duck president? If his most significant policies have no chance of clearing the other bodies and agencies of government, how real effective can he be?

Like it or not, you need someone in there who can work the system to at least some degree. Someone who is constantly pissing in the wind accomplishes nothing.

So then Romney or Clinton can count on your vote? Because then according to your point you are electing "machine politicians" as Theodore Roosevelt said.

[TheMojoPin]

So then Romney or Clinton can count on your vote? Because then according to your point you are electing "machine politicians" as Theodore Roosevelt said.

Why does what I said mean I'm voting for Hillary Clinton or Mitt-freakin'-Romney?

And yes, let's pretend like Theodore Roosevelet wasn't a "machine politician." People need to face facts in that these mythical "Washington outsiders" simply do not exists when it comes to running for president.

[TheMojoPin]

A more Libertarian ( or even better a more Constitutionalist one) voice is NEEDED more than ever. The more Paul is in the news and public opinion, the more issues are addressed. Does this really come off like a need for attention or is it spirited debate? For too long we as a people have viewed politics sort of like the weather: " Oh it's terrible, but what can you do?".

And getting someone as outdated and apparently stubborn as Paul into the office accomplishes nothing. What will he be able to "do" if his major policies fly dramatically in the face of the rest of the government because they're only applicable to an America that either no longer exits or never existed and have little to no chance of coming to fruition?

[Grendel_Kahn]

Why does what I said mean I'm voting for Hillary Clinton or Mitt-freakin'-Romney?

And yes, let's pretend like Theodore Roosevelet wasn't a "machine politician." People need to face facts in that these mythical "Washington outsiders" simply do not exists when it comes to running for president.

Point of fact Teddy WASN'T a "machine politician". Spent his entire adult life fighting against such an animal. He was not elected to the presidency he was placed there by the assassination of Mckinley. The common vernacular regarding his appointment to the VICE presidency would be " Kicked upstairs". Unpopular and disliked by his own party he was put into a position where he would have virtually no voice and effect/affect no policy at all. Neutering by promotion.

[TheMojoPin]

Point of fact Teddy WASN'T a "machine politician". Spent his entire adult life fighting against such an animal. He was not elected to the presidency he was placed there by the assassination of Mckinley. The common vernacular regarding his appointment to the VICE presidency would be " Kicked upstairs". Unpopular and disliked by his own party he was put into a position where he would have virtually no voice and effect/affect no policy at all. Neutering by promotion.

But that's ignoring his entire career as a politician and an insider who clearly knew how to play the game. That's evident in all of the many excellent biographies written about him. And that he birthed the idea of America as the world's cop and the American Empire and forcing our brand of "democracy" on other countries because it's "right."

[scottinnj]

I'm not a fan of Hillary's, but to dismiss her as "just a housewife" is a pretty ridiculous dismissal of her role as one of the most active and prominant First Ladies in our nation's history for 8 years.



That was only when she was channeling Eleanor Roosevelt.


waka waka!

[scottinnj]

It's pretty much me, epo and HBox, and we've moved far beyond just replying with "he's crazy."

Well, me too, but I still am calling him crazy though. Or racist, depending on your views of accepting campaign contributions from the looney jew-hating right and not returning it when called out on it.

[scottinnj]

You're on page four in this thread?! Don't you people know there is no room for dissent when we're in the middle of a War On Tacos! That's what the gorditafascists want you to do - to "think outside the bun" of freedom! Only then can they feed you their firey packets of tocoganda so that you'll "run for the border" and straight into their terrorist rancheros where you'll be molded into just another bean in their burrito of hate! WE must be supreme on the platter of ideas and never be mild! We must not allow them to infect our value menus with their burrito-supremist ideology. We must drive-through the battle to them so we don't have to sit-down with them at our own tables. We must not meximelt in the face of the enemy! We must ring the bell-grande of liberty for all to order! This is a quesadilla of them or us! We must say to them: "This is nacho fiesta today, you hairless little rat-dogs! You thought we were soft, but you found out we were crunchy! You querroed an ass-kicking and now you're gonna get one bell-grande!" And together we will make the McWorld safe for freedom fries once again. And may God supersize America!

I don't know about the rest of you, but I make a motion to lock up the thread, because I do believe Yerdaddy has single-handedly taken us to the top of the pyramid.